Goulston v Sundell as executor of the estate of the late James Ralph Sundell

In the matter of Goulston v Sundell, the applicant, Goulston, sought an injunction to prevent the transfer of a distribution from a unit trust for the 2023 financial year to the respondent, Sundell. Sundell, who holds legal ownership of the units in the unit trust, argued that he is entitled to the distribution. Goulston, on the other hand, claimed to be the beneficial owner of the units and sought final relief in the proceedings. Sundell contended that he required the distribution to cover his anticipated legal costs for the final hearing, scheduled for April 2024. Goulston argued that there was a risk of dissipation of the distribution if the injunction was not granted. The court granted a temporary injunction, and the matter now before the court was whether the injunction should be continued, and if so, on what terms.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether Goulston was the beneficial owner of the units in the unit trust, and if so, whether there was a risk of dissipation of the distribution if the injunction was not granted. The court also needed to determine whether Sundell's need for the distribution to cover his anticipated legal costs outweighed Goulston's risk of dissipation. Furthermore, the court had to consider the appropriate terms for continuing the injunction, if at all.

The court found that Goulston was indeed the beneficial owner of the units in the unit trust. It also found that there was a significant risk of dissipation of the distribution if the injunction was not granted. The court considered Sundell's need for the distribution to cover his anticipated legal costs but found that it did not outweigh Goulston's risk of dissipation. The court granted a continued injunction but on specific terms, including that Sundell would be paid a portion of the distribution to cover his anticipated legal costs, subject to a detailed accounting. The court also set a date for a further hearing to review the terms of the injunction.

The court ordered that the temporary injunction be continued, subject to the terms outlined above. It also ordered that Sundell would be paid a portion of the distribution to cover his anticipated legal costs, subject to a detailed accounting. The court set a date for a further hearing to review the terms of the injunction. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, and it balanced the competing interests of the parties in a fair and equitable manner.